The most common objection people have to our research: "Too many people would have been involved to pull off such a massive hoax." Well, with trillions of taxpayers' dollars at hand, this operation could certainly afford contracting many individuals (under a gag order and on a need-to-know basis). Meet the real - and unreal - persons, companies & entities assigned to carry out this gigantic, media & military-assisted psyop.

I ran into an issue some months years back (actually 2011), whereby several videos of notitbros (my YouTube account) had been removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim from "Goldfish Pictures, Inc." or some such. However, I did manage to find them and it seems that decision was reversed for 4 of the videos, at least from the perspective of my present IP in Italy. Please let me know if you can view them or not and we can try to recover and/or move them.

So, for those interested in another September Clues-like critique of the Naudet propaganda film 9|11, here are the remains of my attempt at that. Bear in mind I worked on these from 2007 to 2008 from a home-recorded copy of 9|11 from its original air date 6 months after September 11th, 2001. As such, it is reprehensible quality, but it includes some bizarre and eerie little gems that may not have made it to the DVD about the creation of Homeland Security, an intro from total creep Robert DeNiro, and advertisements from the propaganda's sponsor Nextel (which merged with Sprint — a huge clue about what kind of corporation was for the militarized security apparatus upgrade that followed 9/11).

Super "Not It" Bros. 1 - Propaganda 101

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBjPKEJfdTM

Super "Not It" Bros. 2 - First Strike

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlGVH-C0ctg

Super "Not It" Bros. 3 - Second Strike

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2yZo9evQoQ

[st]Super "Not It" Bros. 4 - 8,000,000 served[/st] REMOVED

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwqJnGPKQqAThis was generally about the use of persuasion techniques to manufacture the idea that a propaganda piece can represent the views of 8 million people in a city.

[st]Super "Not It" Bros. 5 - Naudet Bombs[/st] REMOVED

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZbRoK-cQkThis was about the supposed presence of pre-planted explosives on the scene, which contradicts the airplane story.

[st]Super "Not It" Bros. 6 - Collapse[/st] REMOVED

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIPXaKQtNfAThis was about the creepy videos made supposedly "under the tower" involving vicsim 0000000001 "Reverend Mychal Judge"

Super "Not It" Bros. 7 - We Could Be Heroes

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6hjlRKpvpE

[st]Super "Not It" Bros. 8 - Infinite Regression Therapy[/st] REMOVED

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ7kckptdAYThis one was about how hypnosis is achieved through constant repeating of information, making it stick in the mind regardless of its artificiality.

The typical notice I received in September 2011 looked like this:

Dear notitbros:

We have disabled the following material as a result of a third-party notification from Goldfish Pictures, Inc. claiming that this material is infringing:

Please Note: Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.

If one of your postings has been misidentified as infringing, you may submit a counter-notification. Information about this process is in our Help Center.

Please note that under Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act, any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material was disabled due to mistake or misidentification may be liable for damages.

Sincerely,

— The YouTube Team

Hmm. But why four of the set?

They also removed my video Super "Not It" World: Naudet Fakery which I used to prove to myself that they probably re-rendered the "first airplane" scene due to frame discrepancies between the different releases of the film.

hoi.polloi wrote:Also, in case it has been totally buried, here is the original broadcast as I documented it from my family's VHS recording transfered to MOV to FLV: http://www.septemberclues.info/naudet

Aha! Alright, I found my original video for my re-visit to the world of Naudet (that YouTube censored). Here, I've made a way for us to stream it from SeptemberClues.info without the need for YouTube oversight:

The ORIGINAL BROADCAST of '9|11' (March 2002)The Naudet-Nextel propaganda movie — as it was aired 6 months after 9/11 and recorded on VHS

Did anyone else notice the advertisement for Discover credit cards in the Naudet film? It can be seen at 00:16 seconds and 01:23 (for example) of Super "Not It" World. I didn't even notice it until now. Goes to show re-watching can make you still discover new things.

discover.GIF

Though being entirely sick of it and not wanting to see this stuff ever again is totally understandable from my point of view.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I have extensively studied the 9/11 Task Force interviews and no-one who was allegedly with Jules Naudet in the lobby of WTC1 names him, even those who knew who he was. The "firemen" who were allegedly with Jules Naudet at the corner of Church and Lispenard don't name him at all.

This "witness" critique adds to Hoi's video critique that no such filming took place that day.

Out of over 500 Task Force interviews only 10 people (2%) mention being filmed either in the lobby of WTC1 or elsewhere by personages who might or might not have been Jules or Gedeon Naudet.

All the above statements reveal indications of deceptive language and/or fabrication in them.

14 firefighters from Duane Street weren't interviewed at all despite being first responders and appearing in the Naudet movie. There is no official statement to the Task Force of Damian Van Cleaf, Pat Zoda, Captain Dennis Tardio, Chief William Blaich, Ed Fahey, Ron Schmutzler, Gary Lajiness, Jamal Braithwaite, John McConnachie, Chris Mullin, John O’Neill, Steve Olson, James Hanlon or Tony Benetatos.

I can't find any legitimate reason why the main Duane Street firemen (who were with the Naudets that day) failed to mention it in their Task Force interviews, not if they were real firefighters and not if they really wanted to help find out what happened that day. After all, it was claimed to be a huge crime scene. They clearly didn't think it was worth mentioning the Naudet's filming them that day despite the alleged heavy losses of other firemen in WTC1. That omission speaks volumes to me.

Firemen from Duane Street have no excuse whatsoever for not mentioning their being filmed that day by the Naudets, most especially not Joseph Pfeifer. Real firemen would talk about the events of that day afterwards and it would come out pretty quickly that there was a film of their activities. If the filming was totally legitimate there would be no need for silence about it in the Task Force interviews. Anyone giving a statement who is aware that they were filmed would put forward that film as evidence to back up their statement. No-one from Duane Street who claims to have seen the first "plane" from the location of Church and Lispenard mentions that there is a film of it in their Task Force interview and no-one from Duane Street who was allegedly in the lobby of WTC1 mentions that either.

Was the Naudet tape "confidential" and in the hands of the FBI and everyone had signed a non-disclosure agreement about it? No, because 10 people do mention either the tape or filming going on, in the vaguest terms imaginable. There was nothing stopping anyone from naming either of the Naudets or their having been filmed, in their Task Force interviews, as any sensitive third party name could have been redacted when the interview transcripts were released.

The closest anyone comes to naming the Naudets is Charles Gribbon, the man who signed the Naudet filming agreement. Here's what he had to say:

We come through those doors. I don't know who I see, but now I know, because I've seen videotape. I have seen videotape from the French guys, quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon (inaudible). Et cetera et cetera. There they are filming, because I have seen this. I come through with the crew. Chief Pfeifer from the First Battalion is standing there because I catch it on the video.

So, in the end, even Charles Gribbon doesn't say the name Naudet. This results in zero mentions of the name Naudet in 7,060 pages of oral testimony. Zero mentions of the name of any Naudet filming on the corner of Church and Lispenard, and zero mentions of any Naudet in the lobby of WTC1.

Edit: I will add to this shortly and show what was said by the 10 people who did bother to bring up film or filmmakers in their task force interview and how vague and unreliable it all is.

James Basile - a photographer, a video crew Peter Hayden - a tape floating around Albert Turi - the video Frank Gribbon - quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon (inaudible)Rosario Terranova - a video, confidential in nature, taken by an amateur photographerStephen King - a videotape that was taken by I guess, a department photographer, (and later he says) that cameramanJohn Moribito - the French filmmakerPeter Fallucca - a guy with a video cameraSteve Rogers - there was a film maker there, a French film maker that was filming that dayTimothy Brown - I think we had a tape, kind of, of the people that were there

Interesting. "Confidential in nature" seems like an unconscious slip of the tongue there, no? Why would a documentary be "confidential in nature"? The numerous references to "a tape" also make it seem as though there is a strong disjointedness around the connection between the crew's story and the actual experience of the firefighters.

If I ever got around to a thorough update of the movie critique, I'd like to include your stuff. Thank you!

hoi.polloi wrote:"Confidential in nature" seems like an unconscious slip of the tongue there, no? Why would a documentary be "confidential in nature"?

Yes, it does come over that way, which is slightly misleading because I haven't included the full quotes yet. I'm still working on putting my copious notes on these testimonies into a more readable format. I also didn't want to swamp everyone with information on this topic all in one go. I wanted to keep it brief for now and highlight their lack of the use of the words "Jules Naudet" or "Gedeon Naudet" as a starting point.

Here is an example from my notes:

Mr Terranova:

There was a video that I was privy to see, which is being kept confidential in nature, held by the chief of safety, and it was taken by an amateur photographer who was doing some training with the first battalion. I don't know if you are aware of the tape, but anyway it's really helped me --seeing that helped me get this frame of reference. I'm very sure of my times on this, you know.

My questions: Why did Terranova get to see the video when at the time of his interview he was only a Lieutenant with Battalion 4? Did he know the firemen from Battalion 1 sufficiently enough for him to gain advance view of the Naudet film? Why doesn't he say who the chief of safety was who was in possession of the video? Why was it confidential in nature? If it was confidential why did he mention it?What sort of training does an amateur photographer undertake with a fire house? Why does he describe Jules Naudet as an amateur photographer when Naudet was using a professional video camera?

End of example.

I'm also writing up a thorough analysis of those witnesses from Duane Street (and those connected to Duane Street) who say they saw the first "plane". As all this is tied to the Naudet film I thought this thread might be the most apt location. If not, let me know, and I'll start a new thread on that topic under its own heading.

As a side note, before continuing with my critique of the 10 statements surrounding "the tape" etc, I'd like to point out some oddities in Battalion 1 Chief Joseph Pfeifer's statement in relation to Jules Naudet. At various times he is asked who he was with and at no point does he say the name Jules Naudet or state overtly that he was being filmed that morning. He was interviewed on 23 October 2001.

Of note is this section:

But right before the south building collapsed, we heard a loud rumbling noise, and those that were left in the area, we knew something was collapsing, and I noticed in the lobby area where you go around the corner to an escalator that leads up into the Customs Building, and as things were collapsing into the lobby of the north tower, I pushed everybody around the corner.

Noticed - adjective: being perceived or observed

I'll untangle his web of words in order make it clearer:

I noticed [in the lobby area where you go around the corner to an escalator that leads up into the Customs Building, and as things were collapsing into the lobby of the north tower], I pushed everybody around the corner.

In other words, Pfeifer observed himself pushing everybody around the corner. How did he observe himself doing that? Did he, in fact, see himself doing that on film prior to this interview? I think the answer to that is yes, he did. Otherwise, he wouldn't have used the word "noticed".

Again he is given the opportunity to say who he was with:

I knew where I was so I pushed people around the corner. There was my aide, Chief Hayden, Chief Callen, an EMS Lieutenant, Father Judge, I think Chief Villani, and there might have been a couple other people, a Lieutenant, I don't know his name, a Fire Lieutenant, and maybe a couple other people.

Maybe a couple of other people? Might have been a couple of other people? Didn't one of those people have a video camera? Wasn't one of those people Jules Naudet?

After the second collapse he says this:

Everything was coming at us, and as it started to turn brown, we dove behind the car, and then the whole street went black and at that point I thought that was it. When the whole street goes black in the middle of the day, that's not a good thing. At that point it was real difficult to breathe. You couldn't see anything now with the debris being under a lot of force. Then after a while it started to clear. Actually, I was with a civilian. Actually, I was laying over him because he had no helmet or anything.

What car is he talking about here? When introducing something that hasn't been mentioned before we use "a", as in "a car", "we dove behind a car", not "we dove behind the car". Again, this indicates that Pfeifer is recalling events, not from memory, but from his observation of his own actions on film that he has viewed prior to this interview. If that is so, why doesn't he mention that film to the Task Force?

Now, either Pfeifer ran with Jules Naudet for a short while and then met some random civilian on the street (which is preposterous, bearing in mind the area had been evacuated) or he's deliberately avoiding mentioning that he was with Jules Naudet that day in his interview with the Task Force. This is quite apart from the fact that during his section on seeing the first "plane" he was also with Jules Naudet who allegedly captured it all on film, and yet he fails to mention that as well.

Like I said, I don't remember -- I'm sure you probably saw a tape floating around. Did you see a tape floating around? Q. Which tape? A. A tape going around regarding the fire? Q. A videotape of it?A. Yeah. Q. No. A. If you see that, that might be able to help you out. You know, showing the plane hitting the building. Q. (Inaudible.)

Hayden was in charge of Division 1 and in direct command of Battalion 1 (Duane Street). He doesn't mention the tape until the end of the interview, in a casual manner ("floating about"). An honest person would have mentioned the tape at the beginning of the interview if they felt it had a direct bearing on events. He then says the tape is regarding the fire first and the plane second, which is bizarre. It wasn't simply a tape going around showing the fire, so why did he initially make out that it was? He then fails to mention that he's in the film himself and he does not say who made the tape despite his being interviewed at the very location where Jules and Gedeon Naudet were based.

Albert Turi, interview date 23 October 2001, (after Hayden)

(when asked if the elevators were working):

Not to my knowledge. I'm sure it was done. I mean, in fact, I know it was done because I've seen the video, but not when I was in there, and I really wasn't concerned about it at that point.

As there was only one film taken inside the lobby of WTC1 Turi has to be referring to the Naudet video. Use of "the video" indicates that it was common knowledge, otherwise he'd say "I've seen a video".

What gets sort of interesting and confusing here is there’s a videotape that was taken by I guess, a department photographer, that was in that lobby with us and I had the opportunity to see some of that recently, guess last week and I’m in that videotape quite a bit.

"sort of" - uncommitted to his own statement.

"I guess, a department photographer" - at first I thought the FDNY's photo-bods might all be under one heading and this is why King says "department photographer" but I found the following link:

The Photo Unit, which falls under the auspices of the FDNY’s deputy commissioner of Public Information, has five members—three firefighters, an EMT and a lieutenant. It is the photographic counterpart to FDNY’s AV Unit, which shoots video.

"that was in the lobby with us" - should be "who was in the lobby with us".

"guess last week" - does he not know when he saw it?

Some of the events I remember are a little bit different than when I’m watching myself. To give you an idea, when I say that this has been a very stressful or confusing event for me, literally, if you would have asked me to do this interview without viewing the tape, I would have said that I remember the escalators distinctly and that I thought I walked and continued past them and out.

Not going up the escalators isn't "a little bit" different to walking past them and out. It is vastly different.

Why are his memories different to those that are on the tape and why has he brought attention to it? He says: "if you would have asked me" which is a complaint aimed at the Task Force interviewers. Basically he's saying to them, in an underhanded fashion, that if he hadn't seen the tape before the interview then he would have related an entirely different version of events to them. It is implied that this would have been their fault, not his, as they had not asked him to view the film beforehand. Contrary to his belief, it was not their job to make sure his testimony matched the film or to encourage him to be influenced by what was in it. It was an opportunity for him to give an honest account of what happened that day.

Note that King was a Safety Chief at Marine Division on 9/11. Is he the chief of safety referred to by Ros Terranova regarding the "confidential tape held by the chief of safety"? Or was Terranova referring to Chief Albert Turi who was also a chief of safety? Terranova was interviewed after Turi, but before King and it is difficult to establish exactly who is wagging the dog in these interviews.

Moving on with the rest of his testimony:

However, on the videotape, we go up the escalator and I go up the escalator with them. Then at some point, I think, we separated and that cameraman stayed with Chief Pfeifer and they went in a different direction.

He says "we go up the escalator and I go up the escalator with them" instead of the correct "they go up the escalator and I go up the escalator with them". However (despite that) I fail to see how anyone could be identified on the video at that point.

King now changes terms from "photographer" to "cameraman" - why? What is the difference in his mind between a cameraman and a photographer?

This is only a brief look at King's statement, outside of the odd behaviour he exhibits towards his (allegedly) deceased aide, Bobby Crawford, which I hope to cover elsewhere at some point.

Chief Pfeifer from Battalion 1 come in. Along with him was the battalion aide, and the French filmmaker, who happened to be standing in the lobby at the time, and he was videotaping everything that was occurring.

"who happened to be standing in the lobby at the time" - it's all so very casual isn't it? As if a civilian filming during a terrorist attack was normal or evacuating all other civilians but not Naudet wasn't unusual.

It is implied in the above language that Moribito saw Pfeifer enter ("come in") but that doesn't make structural sense. There is a missing word - "had" - and it should read "Chief Pfeifer from Battalion 1 had come in". He saw that Pfeifer was there already and he was with his aide and Naudet, otherwise he wouldn't have said "who happened to be standing in the lobby" following straight on from "come in".

Moribito says "the French filmmaker" indicating that he knew who the filmmaker was. As Moribito clearly knew by December 2001 who Naudet was, why does he then fail to name him?

Peter Fallucca, interview date 26 December 2001

I remember seeing a guy filming in the lobby. There was a guy with a video camera in the lobby filming. Q. Fireman? Civilian? A. He look like -- you know, might have been a light-duty guy. He looked like he had a firemen uniform, but he didn't have bunker gear on. He just had the coat on and blue pants. It looked like a fireman, but it didn't look like -- he wasn't wearing -- he didn't have bunker gear on, and he wasn't wearing a helmet. Just he had a camera, and I remember him filming with a camera, and it wasn't like the amateur ones. It looked like a professional looking camera that he had.

"it looked like a fireman" should be "he looked like a fireman". ("it looked like" is the sort of thing you say after you have looked at a film and have tried to work out what you were looking at. Fallucca catches himself doing this and switches back to "he".)

Why was "the guy filming in the lobby" dressed like a fireman when he wasn't a fireman? Indeed, why do the Naudets wear clothing very similar to the firemen around them instead of their own civilian clothes and an ID badge?

Steve Rogers, interview date 9 January 2002

We jumped in my truck, the three of us (Kirk Pritchard and John McConnachie). Actually there was a film maker there, a French film maker that was filming that day.

Despite Rogers knowing exactly who the French filmmaker was, he singularly fails to name him, for no apparent reason.

Timothy Brown, interview date 15 January 2002

I believe at this point Rich Schirer (sic) was there. I think I saw the Commissioner there. I think we had a tape, kind of, of the people that were there. Q. Yes, I think so. A. Yeah, I think the tape came in after I left. Q. Yeah, it could be."

"believe", "think" and "kind of" are all weak. He doesn't "know". "had a tape" is also past tense and indicates that it no longer existed or whoever the "we" he is referring to no longer had it.

In conclusion, out of over 500 first responder testimonies, only 5 people mention someone filming in the lobby of WTC1.

Who was that masked man? The closest we get to an answer in the Task Force testimonies is:

the French guys, quote/unquote the Jules and Gideon (inaudible). Et cetera et cetera.

The first 6 witnesses all knew each other and were all at the corner of Church and Lispenard investigating a gas leak and all of them appear in the Naudet "documentary".

The next 3 witnesses also all knew each other and they are all connected to Duane Street. 1 was from EMS Division 1, and 2 were from an 89 on Church and Duane Street. Loutsky's chief is conveniently mis-typed as someone called Chief Vlicharz (who doesn't exist). All their testimonies are riddled with inconsistencies even outside any connection they might have had to Duane Street.

So, 9 out of 14 "first strike" or first "plane" TFI witnesses are all connected in some way. That's 64%.

Of the 5 remaining witnesses 2 of them also knew each other (Cohen and Davis). Their accounts reveal that neither of them truly saw anything. Robert Larocco brags that he worked part time for the Secret Service in WTC7 and he makes outrageous claims in his testimony that no reasonable person would take seriously. Mr Carletti was on a 24 hour tour with Engine 5 and he met up with Ladder 7 at a gas leak on 2nd Street and Second Avenue at, or around, the time of the "second strike". His account also can't be taken seriously due his propensity to switch tenses all the time (a sign of story telling). The remaining witness was based at the HQ of Ladder 22 and he didn't actually see anything of any value. All these witnesses appear to be independent from the Duane Street firemen and the Naudet documentary, but as all their testimonies are riddled with inconsistencies anyway they can all be dismissed.

I can post analysis showing where there are inconsistencies in the statements, but for now it's more important to highlight how few first plane witnesses there are in the TFIs and how the vast majority are all linked to each other.